Nicole,
You and I just aren't going to agree on this (use of the word banning in a commercial enterprise). So noted.
-Hoot.
When Jackvance started his Dixie Chick boycott thread, he said something to the effect of, trying to intimidate people into silence is something that should not happen in America. Although his thought process may have been very well intentioned, he comes across as someone who is naive and immature. Because the fact of the matter is that intimidating boycotts are more American than baseball and apple pie.
Let us not forget the very first boycott this country ever had. Need a hint? How about the Boston Tea Party. It was the start of the most effective boycott that has ever taken place!
The very first boycott I personally ever took part in was in the late 60's, and refused to eat grapes at the behest of Caesar Chavez who was trying to form a farm labors union. Although it took a decade and more, there is little doubt of the success of this particular economic intimidation.
I have been boycotting Carl's Jr (although I hardly ate their anyway) for the last 10+ years, as they pour a heep of corporate profits to fund right to life organizations.
I also stand by PETA's boycott of Nieman Marcus stores for selling fur.
The Dixie Chick boycott is pretty insignificant when you look at some other boycotts that have far greater international ramifications. Many people are boycotting Mitsubishi as they are contributing to the distruction of the rain forest. An Exxon/Mobil boycott is currently being practiced worldwide because the company is feverishly working against the Kyoto Environmental agreement. There are also boycotts against Nike, Kraft, Werheyser, Disney, KFC, Dow, Denny's and even Blockbuster has people boycotting them for the way they edit their movies.
Some boycotts are silly and sporadic, while others are more serious and organized. Contrary to Jackvance's less sophisticated mindset, boycotts are one of the very few options where the average person on the street can actually influence an outcome. McDonalds and Burger King have changed they way they cage their chickens and treat their cattle due to PETA boycotts and protests. Due to the pressure of a boycott of their products, Staples has phased out all paper products from endangered forests, including those which contain old growth groves. Proctor and Gamble has also responed after an economically devastating boycott, and no longer are they using animals for the testing of some of their products. Many universities that have had boycotts aimed in their direction have responded, and divested themselves of any tobacco stocks that were in their portfolios for years.
And of course what Jackvance started as a thread, the Dixie Chick boycott. Could it be that the majority of the TER community voiced their protest against this boycott because they actually believe boycotts shouldn't be allowed in America, or is it because the roots of the Dixie Chick boycott were fostered out of a somewhat conservative consciousness. It is good to hold a belief that you truly believe in, but it isn't necessarily good when being hypocritical about it (eg. all those boycotts are fine, but this one comes from conservatives so this boycott is bad). Just because a group of people that feel strongly about something that you may disagree with, does not make it a mob mentality. However, I will concede this last point if we dispense with the term polititical parties and just call it the Democratic mob or Republican mob.
Jackvance, you may feel boycotts intimidate people into silence and should not be allowed to happen in America. Here is some wisdom from someone that has a little bit wider polititical perspective, freedom of speech is a right that should never be abridged here in the great old capilalist USA. But even more of a right in the great old capitalist USA is where one can spend (or not spend) their money and then tell everyone with their freedom of speech why the did or didn't spend their dollars in a certain way.
I think the manner in which you wrote down your thoughts is somewhat inflammatory, but on the whole, I think your comments like "...boycotts are one of the very few options where the average person on the street can actually influence an outcome" are right on the mark!
-Hoot.
Inflammatory? Wow, that is a rather strong word. It was not meant to come across that way. It actually was a lack of tolerance on my part. I guess there has been an occasional time or so in my life when I have failed to hide my impatience when responding to besotted generalizations that really have no basis in fact. Thanks for bringing this to my attention and your other comments.
folks of the error of your ways.
When someone makes a political statement, and someone else chooses to boycott instead of countering their arguments with reasoned arguments of their own, they are choosing to stifle the other person's view with an action that has no content other than "fuck you, I disagree with you". No point, counterpoint (as we are doing now), no reasoned discussion.
When we disagree with someone, we shouldn't say "shut up!", we should say "speak up", and encourage them to speak their views, so that we can counter them with our own views. Boycotts don't do that. Is it really that tough to understand?
The point is that in a democracy we discuss the issues openly, and encourage each other to express our views. As far as I can tell, the boycotters of the Dixie Chicks were not doing that.
Those who have opposed my views have consistently used the language of retaliation toward the Dixie Chicks rather than of reasoned discussion. They speak about the "way the world works" and say that people should understand that if they behave "stupidly", they will be made to suffer the consequences. They couch this in the language of "personal responsibility". And so bullies will always say that their victims "brought it on themselves", and should have understood what would happen if they do not act the way the bullies want them to.
It is beyond me how you are going to convince anyone of your viewpoint if you continue to frame those who disagree with you as bullies. Do you think they see themselves as bullies? Have you really considered their point of view?
I think you have a better chance of putting people on the defensive with your semantics, and keeping passions inflamed, than having an instructive dialogue.
-Hoot.
I would not be a happy camper listening to their diatribe! I would have paid good money for them to entertain me! Not preach to me! - I can get much better quality of that on radio talk shows. So if I wish to boycott them it's my prerogative! Also, please remember the so-called equality myth: yes - we were created equal but that's where it ends! Dixie chicks and others, et al, have more rights than I do - they can speak on a stage to thousands of people (many of them unwilling participants) and yet I don't have that right to do the same! So where is the discussion? - boycotting is one of the very few effective tools we have!
and you want to boycott them to shut them up, right? Am I understanding your viewpoint correctly?
up yourself (using words and ideas)?
supposed profession?
up yourself (using words and ideas)?
From an earlier post:
"The stuff about how the Dixie Chicks had access to the media which the boycotters didn't is whining, but beyond that it misses the point. Having discussions with your friends, neighbors, and colleagues about the issues is what this is all about. When a public figure makes a comment that I disagree with, I sure as hell don't go into "reprisal mode" and try to personally punish them for making the comment. I take what they said as a starting point for discussing the issues with the other people in my life".
-- Modified on 5/30/2003 9:28:09 PM
It is a double edged sword, IMHO. I also agree with HootOwl. But as another poster so eliquently put it;
"The boycotts you describe focus conscience on a desired outcome. There is no outcome to the Dixie Chick boycott that contributes to freedom or liberty. It's strictly a feel-good endeavor and for people in the previous thread to attribute the boycott to some pro-American outcome is dangerous. The only action outcome it can possibly cause is for celebroties to hesitate next about voicing their honest opinions and I just don't see how this contributes to the experiment of democracy."
And that is it in a nutshell for the effect the DC's boycott had snowballed into was and is something more dangerous that, as well intentioned people may have been and perhaps without realizing it, their demands began trampling on their very own liberties. With the vehement backlash from the public, the media responded in kind with other artists that had anti war views and/or artists that recorded songs with an antiwar message to it. That comes dangerously close to a censorship frenzie not unlike the kinds that it was compared to in the thread below in past history and that many of those same people that backlashed vehemently believe were wrong.
What is done is done, but there are lessons to be learned from it all. Was demanding that their music be pulled from the airwaves a right thing to do? Did it not trample on the rights of those that were in agreement? Did they actually want all artists with anti war views boycotted in the same manner? Does it open the door for the media to continue doing the same with other issues in which ones views may not be a popular view? How innane can it get? This artist smokes, I don't agree...pull it? It conflicts with my views on religion...so pull it? They don't support my president, so pull it?
We all know what it is like to be a minority. For Hells sake, we are all here and practice in a hobby that is considered taboo. If a celebrity was found doing the same, should they be pulled and chastised in the same manner because popular views don't quite mesh?
What role should media outlets play in such political debates? Don't they and those around them hold them to a higher standard in being fair and unbiased (yes, I choke on that to some degree too!)? Would a fair answer be that in the future that media make a statement that although the views of the artist may not be their own that they will give fair air play in order to not infringe on others rights and liberities? Hell, HBO and others put the same disclaimers on some of the material they show. If the content matter isn't something that one agrees with, they go else where and return when it does. They are quite successful. Is that nieve thinking?
Hypocritical many, including myself, may be. I did not agree with the statement made by the DC's and it angered me too. I did and do not agree with the anti war sentiment, but do believe that they had and have the fundamental right to state their views without the reprecussions that I saw take place.
Perhaps that is why this is such a passionate subject, for it isn't very cut and dry, but do feel it important that we ask ourselves these questions and contemplate. Be careful what you ask for.....you just may get it and trifold.
Lauren
Justapplayer wrote:
"I have been boycotting Carl's Jr (although I hardly ate their anyway) for the last 10+ years, as they pour a heep of corporate profits to fund right to life organizations.
I also stand by PETA's boycott of Nieman Marcus stores for selling fur."
These are fundamentally different issues, and help illustrate my point about the Dixie Chicks.
In these examples, you are taking concrete action to counter their actions. The outcome will be either (a) financial pressure will ultimately alter their behavior; or (b) at least my money isn't fowing through to their contributions to those causes.
I applaud those kind of action-based initiatives.
But the Dixie Chicks boycott is not action based. No soldier's lives will be spared, no Iraqi civilians will be spared, and none of the tough moral issues of unilateral preemptive strikes will be allayed by boycotting a musician.
The boycotts you describe focus conscience on a desired outcome. There is no outcome to the Dixie Chick boycott that contributes to freedom or liberty. It's strictly a feel-good endeavor and for people in the previous thread to attribute the boycott to some pro-American outcome is dangerous. The only action outcome it can possibly cause is for celebroties to hesitate next about voicing their honest opinions and I just don't see how this contributes to the experiment of democracy.
Personally, there are only a few boycotts that I am passionate enough about to get myself involved. However, I am all for anyone who boycotts another person or company for whatever reason. If protests are non violent, I feel they are a fundamental right. Whether I find all boycotts or protests to be sensible is another matter entirely.
If one person or a group of people finds another entity offensive, for whatever reason, it is well within their democratic right to boycott or protest that person or company. Now, if the boycott is somewhat successful the person or company can stop saying or doing what is found to be offensive and continue rolling along and taking in the money. There is an alternative however, the person or company can tell those who are boycotting that they deeply believe that whatever they are saying or doing is not offensive and they are not going to stop. This may cause some economic downsizing for the person or company, but they maintained their principles and integrity.
Throughout our illustrious nation's history, countless people and organizations have given up enormous amounts of money, or even their lives, for the sake of a principle. Of course if they don't really believe in what they are saying or doing, it is just easier to give in to the boycott and stop the economic loss.
You said that expecting a boycott to have a pro-American outcome is dangerous. I find it difficult to respond to that, other than to say the entire world is in a more dangerous place. Unfortunately 9/11 has effected our collective psyche as a nation far more than anyone of us can truly realize. For the next several years I think we will find that periodically certain situations and circumstances will arise that will manifest itself in ways that may be somewhat surprising and compelling, which just a few years ago may not have had any impact. I think for some time to come all bets are off on what we can expect. How we conducted or reacted to situations in the past, may give little or no insight how we will respond now and in the future. It may be difficult for some to really grasp this concept. However, life moves on and eventually we will adapt. Let's just hope normalcy returns soon.
I think a lot of people feel the way you do about how things are fundamentally different in the post-9/11 world.
I agree with JV, your last paragraph is particularly interesting and well written.
I can't remember the guy's name, but there's "so-and-so's" law that states that in general, humans overestimate the short-term impact, and underestimate the long-term impact of any phenomena.
I think that applies here very well--that our emotional response to 9/11 initially was pretty predictable, but wore of very quickly, really. What remains to be seen is all the intriguing, unexpected ways in which 9/11 will affect our national psyche in the long term.
Justaplayer wrote:
"You said that expecting a boycott to have a pro-American outcome is dangerous. I find it difficult to respond to that..."
Just to clarify, my point was that boycotts are either "feel good" based, i.e. "at least those bastards aren't getting any of my business" or they are outcome-based, i.e. "I hope my voice influences their behavior."
In the examples shown above, the boycotts were in pursuit of a change in action--that a company would stop contributing to some cause, stop polluting, etc. Even if your voice doesn't change their behavior, at least you know that your proceeds aren't flowing through to the cause or ill behavior.
The Dixie Chicks boycott is not effect-based. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that--again, boycott away if it makes your life feel richer in some way. But if you believe your boycott's goal is effect-based, you're playing a dangerous game. The possible outcomes are:
1. In the future, other celebs will be hesitant to share their views. I agree fully with jackvance, that discouraging others from participating in an open dialog doesn't take us in the direction I think we all want our country to go.
2. The Chicks will succumb to pressure and artifically retract their statement to get their record label off their back. What does that accomplish? Again, forcing people to back away from their beliefs--not actions, but beliefs--through economic pressure doesn't take us down the right road.
I don't see any outcome that does anything positive. It won't serve to sway Natalie's opinion about George-- "Oh yeah, that's right, I just remembered he's my personal hero now, because my sales are down." The only action-outcome it can produce is get people to shut up, and like JV stated at the start of this whole thing, that doesn't support our troops, it doesn't advance liberty, it doesn't move the dialog to the next level.
-- Modified on 5/29/2003 10:05:38 PM
After I heard that the Dixie Chicks were the brunt of the New Right's conservative "you can't question our Commander in Chief" form of political correctness (thus de-facto opposing their opposition's right to debate, obviously in order to have a quicker path to winning that debate -- the last resort of all those who hold a position they can't figure out how to defend adequately) ... I promptly went out and bought a Dixie Chicks album.
The music is abominable, by the way. At least, in my opinion. But that's another debate entirely.
-- Modified on 5/29/2003 6:30:31 PM
a forum for venting all your bottled-up TER angst, expressing your deep-felt and uniquely-skewed political views, trashing everything and anything to do with country music ... and of course ... the salacious but obligatory obscure sexual practices of Richard Gere as well as the myriad ways to have phun with furry little mammals!
[tongue way-in-cheek]